Workmen Compensation Award Must Record Finding On Jurisdictional Fact Whether Injury/Disease Is Caused Incidental To Duties Of Service: Andhra Pradesh HC

Brief Facts of the Case

The appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the award of the Commissioner allowing compensation.

The husband of 1^st respondent died in 2005. The respondents filed for Workmen Compensation claiming compensation against the lorry driver and the New India Assurance Company on the ground that the husband while discharging his duties as driver in the course of employment suffered stomach pain and was shifted to hospital where he died.

The lorry driver admitted the case of the claimants and submitted that on the date of incident the vehicle was insured with the appellant and the policy was in force.

The Commissioner passed an award allowing workmen compensation for an amount of Rs. 3,33,034/-.

Issues involved

The substantial questions of law in appeal as framed in appeal were:

1. Whether the order of Commissioner was correct in view of the law laid down that the disease suffered by the workman should be related to the work done by him?

2. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct when the disease suffered by the workman does not fall under occupational disease as specified in Schedule III of Workmen's Compensation Act?

Finding of the Court

The disease, stomach pain suffered by the workman did not relate to the work done by him. The postmortem report showed that the workman was suffering from chronic "Idiopathic Inflamatory Bowel disease". Furthermore, the said disease did not fall under the occupational disease.

A bare perusal of Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act make it clear that employer's liability to pay compensation to the employee arises if the personal injury is caused to the employee by accident arising out of and in the course of employment or if the employee contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mackinnon Machenzie and Co. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak (1969) in which it was held that in case of accident, "the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which unless engaged in the duty owing to the master it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered. There must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment."

It was observed from the present award that the Commissioner had not made any specific finding in the order as to whether the accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment. The court opined that the Commissioner had not framed any issues, and had not dealt with the material aspects in this judgment. The circumstances were mot mentioned under which the claim was allowed.

"The jurisdictional fact of relationship between the accident and the employment had not been recorded."

The appeal was thus allowed and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. M. Lakshmi Ramateertham

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 122 

Counsel for appellant: Naresh Byrapaneni

Counsel for respondents: None appeared